r e p o r t - freedom networkcommission’report’re:’ incidentoffiringonhamidmir ’"...
TRANSCRIPT
Commission Report re: Incident of firing on Hamid Mir
1
R E P O R T
OF
THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY comprising
Mr. Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, President Mr. Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, Member
Mr. Justice Iqbal Hameedur Rehman, Member
Appointed vide
Notification (S.R.O.) No.2/125/2014(ops)-8221 dated 21.4.2014
to inquire into
The incident of firing
at
Mr. Hamid Mir Anchor Person GEO NEWS TV CHANNEL
on April 19, 2014 at Karachi
Presented to
The Government of Pakistan on 18 December, 2015
Commission Report re: Incident of firing on Hamid Mir
2
R E P O R T
Anwar Zaheer Jamali, President – On 19.4.2014, Mr. Hamid
Mir, a renowned journalist and media person, received bullet injuries in an
incident of firing at him while he was travelling in a car from Quaid-i-Azam
International Airport, Karachi through Shahra-e-Faisal. The incident received
wide coverage in the national and international electronic and print media. It
was followed by agitation by the media people and members of civil society.
The Government of Pakistan vide Notification (S.R.O) No.2/125/2014(ops)-
8221 dated 21.4.20141, issued under section 3(1) and 5(1) of the Pakistan
Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1956 with the concurrence of the then Hon’ble
Chief Justice of Pakistan appointed a Commission of Inquiry comprising the
following: -
(i) Mr. Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, President
(ii) Mr. Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, Member
(iii) Mr. Justice Iqbal Hameedur Rehman, Member
The terms of reference were as under: -
“The Commission shall ascertain facts, identify culprits and fix
responsibility for the incident of firing on Mr. Hamid Mir on
19.4.2014 in Karachi. The Commission shall also make
recommendations to avoid such incidents in future.”
2. On 23.4.2014, a preliminary meeting of the Commission was
convened wherein it was decided to issue a public notice2 in the print and
electronic media inviting the general public to provide to the Commission
information pertaining to the incident. In response to such notice published in
the Daily Jang (Urdu), the Daily Express (Urdu), the Daily News (English),
the Daily Dawn (English) and the Daily Ibrat (Sindhi) and also aired on some
of the TV channels on 27.4.2014, telephone calls/SMS/ emails were received, 1 Annexure-1 2 Annexure-2
Commission Report re: Incident of firing on Hamid Mir
3
which were brought on record for examination by the Commission at the
appropriate time.
3. An email3 dated 27.4.2014 was received from Mr. Hamid Mir
wherein he proposed certain questions for consideration of the Commission in
finding truth as well as in helping rule of law, justice and free speech in the
country. Those questions read as under: -
(1) Who had Hamid Mir told of threats to him and from whom and
what were those threats?
(2) What happened to previous investigation of the bomb found
under Hamid Mir’s car in November 2013? Why did it stop?
(3) On 29.8.2013 Major Wajahat threatened Hamid Mir through an
SMS, which was broadcast live in the Capital Talk and later aired
on Geo News. What was the background of Major Wajahat and
was any investigation ever conducted into it?
(4) Were there any security agencies which were monitoring or
tracking the whereabouts or the telephonic conversations of
media people and journalists? If so, reasons and justification
therefor?
(5) Was Hamid Mir’s phone conversation being recorded at the
time? Was his movement being tracked? If yes, why?
4. On 24.4.2014, notices/letters were issued to the following
officers/officials to appear before the Commission: -
(1) The Secretary, Home Department Sindh, Karachi
(2) The Inspector General of Police, Sindh
(3) The Director General, Pakistan Rangers, Karachi
(4) The Senior Superintendent of Police Traffic, Karachi
(5) The Deputy Inspector General, Special Branch, Karachi
(6) The Joint Director General, Intelligence Bureau, Karachi
(7) The Deputy Inspector General, (T&T), Karachi and
(8) The Deputy Inspector General, East Zone, Karachi
In response to above notices/letters, following persons appeared before the
Commission on 28.4.2014:-
(1) Mr. Niaz Ali Abbasi, Secretary, Home Department
3 Annexure-3
Commission Report re: Incident of firing on Hamid Mir
4
(2) Mr. Iqbal Mehmood, IGP, Sindh
(3) Maj. Gen. Rizwan Ahmad, DG, Pakistan Rangers, Sindh
(4) Mr. Shahid Hayat, Addl. IGP, Sindh
(5) Mr. Arif Hanif, DIG, Traffic, Karachi
(6) Mr. Munir Ahmed Sheikh, DIG, Sindh Police East Zone,
Karachi
(7) Mr. Moin Habib khan, Joint Director, Intelligence Bureau
(8) Mr. Muhammad Munir, Director, Intelligence Bureau
5. IGP Iqbal Mehmood stated that although DSP Ayub Bhurgari,
SDPO, Police Station Airport, Karachi had been nominated as Investigating
Officer (IO) of the crime, but looking at the sensitive nature of the incident,
after registration of FIR at the Airport Police Station on 23.4.2014, various
Agencies had been jointly engaged in its investigation. A presentation
attended by the aforesaid officials was given so as to apprise of the
Commission about up-to-date progress of investigation from various angles.
During the presentation, it was informed that wide net of investigation had
been thrown in different directions so as to reach to the real culprits involved
in the commission of the crime. Besides, Additional IGP Shahid Hayat, on his
request, was allowed to give in-camera briefing. Accordingly, on 15.5.2014,
DIG East Munir Ahmed Shaikh played a video clip of about 10-15 minutes
showing the efforts being made by the investigation team in apprehending
culprits involved in the crime. The aforesaid officers were required to submit
their respective reports along with relevant documents. A report from the
office of Joint Director, Intelligence Bureau, Karachi, was received the same
day, which was placed on record.4 It was mentioned therein, inter alia, that
explicit warning was communicated to IGP Sindh and DG Rangers of
impending threat against Geo officials as well as assets in Karachi as early as
25.2.2014. The IO was also required from time to time to submit progress
report. In consequence, reports dated 2.5.2014, 6.5.2014, 9.5.2014 and
13.5.2014 were received.5 All these reports were found unsatisfactory as the
4 Annexure-4 5 Annexures-5, 6, 7 & 8
Commission Report re: Incident of firing on Hamid Mir
5
same appeared to be stereotyped and prepared without due application of
mind. Therefore, the IO was directed to appear before the Commission on
3.6.2014 at 2.30 p.m. along with the material collected by him during the
investigation process. On that date, SP Investigation Dr. Abbas Rizvi, DSP
Ayub Bhurgari, IO and Inspector Mubeen, Member JIT, appeared before the
Commission and assured that a detailed report of investigation made by the
JIT constituted for this crime would be submitted. On 16.7.2014, in
compliance with the notice dated 15.7.2014, SSP Investigation East-II/Head
of JIT Dr. Abbas Rizvi and Sub-Inspector Tariq Javed Bhatti/Incharge Legal
Branch appeared before the Commission and submitted following
documents:-
(1) Progress report of JIT
(2) Progress report dated 3.12.2014 containing report under
section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure (Class-A) and
order dated 11.6.2014 passed by SSP Inv.II, East
Zone/Head, JIT
The above reports/documents were placed on record.6
6. In the course of the proceedings of the Commission,
statements7, mostly in the form of affidavits, of following persons were
recorded: -
(1) Mr. Mukhtar Ahmad (affidavit not filed)
(2) Mir Ibrahim Rahman
(3) Mr. Muhammad Umar Farooq Cheema
(4) Mr. Motashimul Haq Thanvi (affidavit not filed)
(5) Mr. Hamid Mir
(6) Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Khattak
(7) Ms. Amina Masood Janjua
(8) Syed Aizaz Hussain Shah
(9) Mr. Maqbool Ahmed Khan (affidavit not filed)
(10) Mr. Doulat Khan (affidavit not filed)
(11) Brig. Zahid Mehmood Khan
(12) Mr. Matiullah Jan
6 Annexures-9 & 10 7 Annexures-11
Commission Report re: Incident of firing on Hamid Mir
6
(13) Lt. Col. (R) Inam-ul-Rahiem
(14) DSP Muhammad Ayub Bhurgari
(15) DSP Fakar-ul-Islam Usmani
7. On 30.4.2014, Mr. Mukhtar Ahmad appeared before the
Commission and deposed that on 19.4.2014 at about 5:15 p.m., he was
sitting in his shop situated at Shahrah-e-Faisal, Karachi, where he was
running the business of courier service under the name of ‘Sky Net’. He
heard the noise of firing. He and many other people from the surrounding
area rushed towards the place of occurrence, opposite Falak Naz Tower,
Shahra-e-Faisal. At that time, from a distance of about 60/65 feet, he saw
that one person was loading magazine in his pistol. He also saw that one
white colour car, at which firing was made, had speeded up and gone
towards Downtown Shahrah-e-Faisal. He further saw that another person
driving a motorcycle reached the place of occurrence, whereupon the person
who had fired at the car jumped and sat on its back seat and both of them
fled away.
8. On a query from the Commission, he stated that the distance of
his shop was about 75 feet from the place of occurrence. About 50 persons
from the locality were attracted to the place of occurrence. He clarified that
he as well as others had not rushed to the place of occurrence, but had
witnessed the incident of firing from a distance of about 60/65 feet. The
person, who had fired at the car with his pistol, appeared to be of 30/35
years of age with normal physique/height. However, he could not say
definitely what dress that person was wearing when he saw him. The
motorcycle in question was Honda 125 CC of black colour having black cover
over it. He further stated that if the culprit was produced before him, he
would not be able to identify him. He would also not be able to identify the
other person who had picked him on his motorcycle. Two persons, namely,
Nawaz and Yasir, were standing at a distance of about 30 feet from the
person who had fired at the car. However, he did not proceed towards them
Commission Report re: Incident of firing on Hamid Mir
7
nor did he talk to them. Nobody had tried to apprehend the culprits as they
were away from them and had fled away immediately. There was no traffic
signal at the place where the incident had occurred and no Traffic Constable
or other police personnel were present there.
9. Mir Ibrahim Rahman, CEO of GEO TV submitted affidavit8, which
was followed by an additional affidavit9. On 6.5.2014, he appeared before the
Commission and affirmed the contents of his affidavits. He stated that
whatever was stated therein was based on the facts disclosed to him by
some other persons and sources as well as the emails received from Mr.
Hamid Mir. He had no personal knowledge about the incident in question as
at the relevant time he was in the aeroplane travelling from Dubai to Karachi.
Mr. Hamid Mir had expressed apprehension of threats from ISI using some
people in Taliban. He stated that certain media groups were active in a
campaign of disinformation against Geo Group, which had for the first time
come on social media. He expressed a suspicion that this too was being done
at the instance of security agencies. Replying to the question “did you ever
talk to any officer of ISI”, he stated that he had talked to Brig. Iftikhar who
was posted in ISI and had also met him in Karachi one and a half years ago.
He further stated that the said officer had told him that Geo Group was
reporting against ISI, Armed Forces, General (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf and
the action being taken in Balochistan, and that it would be better for them to
tone down their reporting on those issues. He further stated that DG ISPR
Major General Asim Saleem Bajwa had also met him 5/6 times within a span
of last two and a half years, including twice at his residence in Islamabad,
once in Serena Hotel, Islamabad and twice in Dubai. He became intimate
with him through the good offices of his friend. According to him, since his
friend was too scared, it would not be in the fitness of things to disclose his
name. Nonetheless, on no occasion was he threatened by anyone. He added
that the threat, if any, was in a veiled tone and he never felt threatened. He 8 Annexure-12 9 Annexure-13
Commission Report re: Incident of firing on Hamid Mir
8
was told not to speak against General (Retd.) Musharraf, Agencies, Forces,
Balochistan issue and missing persons, as it would not be in the interest of
institutions, democracy in general, country in particular and also the
relationship between Geo Group and the Armed Forces. Whenever DG ISPR
talked to him, he would complain about the reporting of Najam Sethi and
Saleem Safi in general, and Mr. Hamid Mir in particular. Many a time, he
politely asked him (deponent) to warn Mr. Hamid Mir of the consequences of
the way he reported. The Geo TV programme ‘Aman Ke Aasha’ on Pakistan-
India relations was also criticized by saying that it was for the State and not
for the media to formulate the foreign policy.
10. On 12.5.2014, Mr. Motashimul Haq filed affidavit10, wherein he
stated that after the incident in question a campaign was launched against
ISI. Mr. Aamir Mir, brother of Mr. Hamid Mir attributed the incident to that
agency, which was affirmed by Mr. Hamid Mir after he regained his health.
He was astonished as to why the FIR was lodged against unknown persons
when the allegation against a State agency had specifically been levelled.. He
stated that the incident was the result of conspiracy hatched by the
intelligence agency of a neighbouring country to defame the Armed
Forces/ISI. He alleged that M/S Hamid Mir, Aamir Mir, Mir Shakilur Rahman
and Ansar Abbasi were also involved in such conspiracy. On 13.5.2014, he
appeared before the commission and stated that whatever he had stated in
his affidavit was based on information collected by him from the
electronic/print media and other sources, and that he had no personal
knowledge of those matters. He stated that FIR was lodged probably after
one week of the incident. In conclusion, he stated that he did not know as to
who was involved in the commission of the crime, who was at its back or who
had aided and abetted it.
10 Annexure-14
Commission Report re: Incident of firing on Hamid Mir
9
11. Mr. Hamid Mir filed his affidavit11 on 2.5.2014, and additional
affidavit12 on 13.5.2014. His brother Mr. Aamir Mir also filed his affidavit13 on
2.5.2014 and additional affidavit14 on 17.5.2014. Mr. Hamid Mir appeared
before the Commission on 19-20.5.2014. He affirmed the contents of the
affidavits. On a query from the Commission, he stated that 3-4 days before
the incident, Programme Producer of Geo had contacted him and requested
him to visit Karachi on 20.4.2014 for a live programme. Since he was of the
view that he had threats to his life and would be more vulnerable and
exposed to danger in Karachi, he was trying to avoid visiting Karachi. That
time, he tried to maintain secrecy of his visit to Karachi and for that reason
initially he had not taken any direct flight from Islamabad to Karachi but flew
via Quetta, which later got converted into a direct flight from Islamabad to
Karachi. When he reached at the Karachi Airport, he immediately informed
his wife through SMS about his safe arrival in Karachi and then left the
Airport in a Toyota Corolla car. While sitting on the rear seat of the car, he
was messaging different persons about his arrival and arrangements for live
programme scheduled on Sunday, when all of a sudden he heard two fire
shots. He felt that those fires had hit the car in which he was travelling.
These two initial fires were aimed towards the Driver. However, soon
thereafter he felt that one fire had hit him on his shoulder. At that time also,
he was engaged in messaging. Realizing the gravity of the situation, he
asked the Driver to speed up the car, which he did, but the assailants, who
may be one or more than one, followed the car en route to the Agha Khan
Hospital and continued firing at them on the road. As the Driver was
speeding up the car towards the hospital, it also met with two minor
accidents with motorcycles, but he noticed that the assailants were still
following the car and continuing firing at it. After a while, before his arrival at
11 Annexure-15 12 Annexure-16 13 Annexure-17 14 Annexure-18
Commission Report re: Incident of firing on Hamid Mir
10
the hospital, he found that few bullets had hit him on his stomach and thigh,
as blood was oozing out and collecting in his shoes and other places. During
his attempts to establish contact with the management of Geo from his cell
phone, he also received calls on his way to hospital. The last fire that hit his
car was just near the hospital, which was also responded by his Security
Guard, who by that time had come on to the rear seat to protect him. It took
them about 10-12 minutes to reach the hospital. The reason for his
apprehension that he was exposed to greater danger in Karachi was that an
incident had happened with him in the year 2013 too, when one Shafique-ur-
Rehman Mengal had invited him to visit Totak on his way from Karachi to
Khuzdar via Hub. When he went to Khuzdar to meet certain politicians, some
persons claiming to be relatives of deceased police personnel had blocked the
road and did not allow him to enter the Press Club. The people of the locality
told him that those persons belonged to a banned terrorist organization,
which was controlled by ISI. At that point of time, Mr. Usman, MNA told him
that Shafique-ur-Rehman was a man of the agencies, who was involved in
the assassination of Abdul Haq Baloch, Joint Secretary, Khuzdar Press Club.
On a query from the Commission, he stated that despite realizing the fact
that he would be exposed to greater risk while visiting Karachi, he had not
disclosed his visit to any of the law enforcing agencies of Karachi to seek
protection. Voluntarily stated, he had no trust in them, therefore, he did not
deem it necessary to make any security arrangements through them.
However, it was the duty of the Geo Management at Karachi to make the
security arrangements for him during his visit to Karachi. The Geo
Management had provided him one Security Guard, who was initially sitting
on the front seat of the car. That Security Guard had also accompanied him
during his earlier visits to Karachi. He did not know whether the Security
Guard provided to him was trained in handling such a situation or he was
simply equipped with a pistol but had no expertise to operate the same. At
the time of occurrence, his Security Guard did not jump out of the car to
Commission Report re: Incident of firing on Hamid Mir
11
provide necessary protection to him or to encounter the assailants, who were
firing at his car. The Guard did not even respond by making any fire from his
pistol at that time. As the Driver was speeding up the car towards the
hospital to save him from the assailants, the Security Guard was in no
position to get out of the car or to fire back at them with his pistol. He stated
that the details of the facts narrated in his two affidavits were based on his
suspicions/apprehensions due to happening of events with him from time to
time. He had the occasion of appearing before the Commission of Inquiry in
Saleem Shahzad’s murder case. His apprehension of involvement of the
agencies was for the reason that even after that incident, agencies were
contacting his friends and telling them that whatever had happened to
Saleem Shahzad was an example for others to set them right and he was
being pressurized time and again through various sources, including high-ups
of the Government, for settlement of controversy with the agencies. In the
process, the stance of the agencies was that he was a victim, they were
ready to apologize to him in private, but their real confrontation was with
Geo Group, and he being part of the Group had to suffer because of it. He
had informed in writing to the Geo Management that if there was any
compromise based on apology with the agencies, he would not become a
party to it. He had further told them that they ought to wait for the report of
the Judicial Commission. He did not know the actual culprits who attacked
him on 19.4.2014, however, he had reasons to believe that they
belonged to the agencies. In his statement before the Inquiry Commission in
Saleem Shahzad’s murder case too, he had expressed suspicions of threats
from Taliban, who were acting at the behest of the agencies. In the present
day scenario, print and electronic media are commercial ventures. On a
query, he stated that he did not know that at times print and electronic
media, being commercial ventures, were also used by different sources for
the purpose of promoting their agenda. Voluntarily stated, he had written a
lot in the print media about the role of agencies as to how by taking dollars,
Commission Report re: Incident of firing on Hamid Mir
12
they were engaged in implementing foreign agenda in Pakistan. He stated
that as a result thereof the media groups had professional rivalries inter se.
However, he suspected ISI as the sole agency behind the incident in
question. He stated that a large number of ethnic groups and criminal gangs
were operating in various parts of Karachi and the law enforcing agencies
had no control over their illegal activities despite specific orders of the
Supreme Court of Pakistan, wherein certain guidelines were provided for that
purpose. Voluntarily stated, agencies were also part of those criminal
activities. It was also a matter of common knowledge that killing of innocent
people and kidnapping for ransom were a daily phenomenon in Karachi.
Although he mentioned many things in his two affidavits about the lack of
security arrangements and non-functioning of CCTV cameras at the time
when he was attacked by unknown persons, he reiterated that it was the
same day when General (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf had reached Karachi under
high security alert. For that purpose, many law enforcing agencies were
engaged, but despite all that when his car was followed by the assailants for
about 7-8 kilometres, CCTV cameras footages were not available nor any law
enforcing agency intercepted the assailants who safely disappeared from the
scene of occurrence. He clarified that he was not holding ISI as an institution
responsible for the incident. On the other hand, few high ranking officials of
that agency who were extremely inimical to, and critical of, him were
responsible for it. Those included the head of ISI, Lt. General Zaheer-ul-
Islam and Brig. Zahid, which fact had also been conveyed to him through
various sources, including the Geo Management. He also named DG ISPR,
Major General Asim Saleem Bajwa, who contacted him and conversed with
him on two occasions – first in his office and later on in Serena Hotel,
Islamabad. The said officer forbade him from doing any programme with
Mama Qadeer Baloch and on the issue of General (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf.
However, when he did not show his inclination to fulfil the demand, the
officer asked him not to do any such programme at least for a week.
Commission Report re: Incident of firing on Hamid Mir
13
However, the DG ISPR never held out any threat, veiled or open, whenever
he met him, but whatever he could infer from the tone and tenor of his
conversation was that his message was not different from that of ISI. The
rapprochement being brought about in Swat between the ANP Government
and Sufi Muhammad, was entirely overseen by ISI. At that time, a girl was
gang-raped in Mengora of which he collected material including a medico-
legal report and also did a programme. After the programme, the then Major
General Zaheer-ul-Islam called him to his office. He told him that the
aforesaid talk show was done on the bidding of Musa Khankhel, who was a
bad Taliban chief. After a few days, Musa Khankhel was done to death. That
incident also furnished a clue that whosoever did anything against the wishes
of the high-ups of ISI, he would be done away with.
12. Mr. Hamid Mir further stated that in a TV programme in the year
2011 when he confronted Kh. Muhammad Asif with the statement of Mr.
Attaullah Mengal about the Punjabi character of the Armed Forces, he
received threatening messages from cell phones No.0333-5245252 and
0331-8175319. The messages he received were “We will beat you on the
road. An army officer will teach you a lesson. You’ll be naked. You are
MOSSAD agent and CIA agent.” After receiving those messages, he reported
them to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and thereafter took on
board the Government by writing a letter. Pursuant to it, the matter was
debated in the National Assembly. The Speaker of the National Assembly
formed a Special Committee to investigate the issue of threats to journalists.
The Committee submitted its report on 13.3.2013. Following the uproar in
the National Assembly, Col. Khalid, then posted in ISI, came to his residence.
He apprised him of the messages sent to him by the officers of ISI. In
response, the Colonel said that the messages so sent were the fallout from
anger. Another proof of anger according to the Colonel was that the officers
sending the messages used their own mobile phones. The said officer was in
Islamabad at the relevant time. His office was housed in a building situated
Commission Report re: Incident of firing on Hamid Mir
14
near Peshawar Morr. Mr. Hamid Mir further stated that in November, 2012, a
bomb was planted under his car while it was parked in Rana Market. The said
Colonel had come to him at that time too, and asked him to visit his office,
but he did not do so. Back to the incident in question, he stated that the side
windows of the car in which he was travelling on 19.4.2014, were curtained.
He added that the modus operandi of the agencies was to tame a person
first, and in case he would not succumb to their pressure, the management
and high-ups of his employer were pressurized. Mir Shakilur Rehman, the top
person of the Geo Management, was also pressurized by the officers of ISI in
the case in hand. The officers of ISI had gone to Dubai and had asked him to
advise him (Mr. Hamid Mir) to mend his ways.
13. On 6.5.2014, Muhammad Umar Farooq Cheema filed affidavit15.
On 7.5.2014, he appeared before the Commission and deposed that at the
time of incident, he was at Karachi Airport and about to leave for Islamabad.
He stated that he did not visit the place of occurrence or Mr. Hamid Mir, who
was hospitalized in Karachi. The facts which he had mentioned in his affidavit
were disclosed to him by Mr. Hamid Mir during their conversations and
meetings. He also narrated the incident of his own kidnapping which had
taken place somewhere in September, 2010 regarding which he had lodged
FIR against unknown persons. During investigation of that crime by the JIT,
he had cast a suspicion on ISI. There was no final outcome of those
proceedings except that at one stage he was told that a group named
‘Tehrek-e-Tahaffaz-e-Pakistan’ had claimed responsibility of his kidnapping
and maltreatment. Regarding that incident, a Judicial Commission was also
constituted by the Federal Government, which had submitted its report, but
contents of the report were never made public. He had no personal
knowledge or information pertaining to the case in hand and whatever he
had stated in his affidavit was gathered by him from here and there.
15 Annexure-19
Commission Report re: Incident of firing on Hamid Mir
15
14. Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Khattak, a representative of Pakistan
Coalition on Media Safety (PCOMS) addressed letter dated 30.4.2014 to the
Commission16 and also filed affidavit17. On 29.5.2014, he appeared before the
Commission. On a query from the Commission, he stated that PCOMS was a
platform, which had a single point agenda, i.e., to improve the security
environment for the media persons in Pakistan. The platform consisted of 18
members/persons, who were not elected but were nominated with their
consent. However, he did not know who was financing PCOMS. Threat to
media people was an international phenomenon. He stated that the emails
received from Mr. Hamid Mir were kept secret/confidential except sharing the
same with some foreign press freedom institutions at the latter’s instructions.
No initiative was taken by PCOMS to provide any safety measures to Mr.
Hamid Mir. He clarified PCOMS was not a platform for entertaining complaints
of media persons regarding threats to them. It was meant to create an
environment where more positive steps could be taken for the safety of
media people in Pakistan and to provide them assistance, including services
of special prosecutors in such cases. In such a situation, he as representative
of PCOMS was working to minimize the risk and threats to the media people
in Pakistan by taking benefit of similar working systems in Mexico and
Colombia. Only emails of Mr. Hamid Mir, as referred to in his affidavit, had
been received on the said platform and nothing else. The media people in
Pakistan had security threats from different quarters, i.e., political and non-
political figures, ethnic groups, the agencies and other non-State actors like
Taliban. He had no personal information about the incident in question and
had come to know about it through electronic and print media. According to
him, media was an important component of the national security of the
country, therefore, its confrontation with any other State institution was
likely to cause serious harm to national unity and security. It was in the
larger interest of the nation as a whole that all differences ought to be 16 Annexure-20 17 Annexure-21
Commission Report re: Incident of firing on Hamid Mir
16
resolved in a respectable manner and all organs of the State ought to
function within their respective domains. He presented a book recently
published by Adnan Rehmat, which contained details about the incidents with
the media people within Pakistan. He stated that whenever any untoward
incident attempting at, or doing away with, the life of a media person took
place, they could guess the hands behind it and say on the strength of their
experience whether it was political, non-political, ethnic or from amongst the
non-State actors. In so doing, what they would see was the work of the
media person, nature of his reporting and the person affected at the other
end. In his estimation the incident of Mr. Hamid Mir could well be attributed
to the people, who were hinted at by Mr. Hamid Mir in his programmes aired
on 5 April 2014 and 16-19 April, 2014.
15. On 3.6.2014, Ms. Amina Masood Janjua appeared before the
Commission and affirmed the contents of her affidavit18. On a query from the
Commission, she stated that it was correct that whatever she had stated in
her affidavit as regards Mr. Hamid Mir, particularly, about the incident in
question was hearsay, as she had come to know all about it from
print/electronic media and other sources. She had not mentioned the persons
who had been threatening Mr. Hamid Mir because he too himself had not
nominated anyone. But in any case, it was the establishment which was
behind it.
16. On the same day, Syed Aizaz Hussain Shah appeared before the
Commission and was examined with reference to his affidavit19. On a query
from the Commission, he stated that he was employed as a Senior
Correspondent in Geo Group. It was correct that he had no personal
knowledge of the incident in question. He had received all information via his
cell phone. He had lodged a complaint with the police wherein he had
nominated the then officers of ISI. Later on, the concerned SHO had told him
that the complaint lodged by him had been misplaced. Thereafter he lodged 18 Annexure-22 19 Annexure-23
Commission Report re: Incident of firing on Hamid Mir
17
another complaint, but with no result. However, despite failure to get any
result of both complaints, he did not take any further step to follow any other
legal remedy because the Institution i.e. ISI against which he had grievance
was very powerful and it was very difficult to get any relief in that regards. In
addition to it, as a result of such complaints, he had also faced difficulties in
his day-to-day reporting as certain bureaucrats avoided meeting him due to
that background. He did not produce any report concerning the incidents,
which had happened with him on 19.1.2010 and 7.5.2010 referred to by him
in his affidavit. He admitted that whatever he had stated in his affidavit
about Mr. Hamid Mir was stemming from his suspicion and observations
based on his experience. He stated that Taliban were also annoyed with Mr.
Hamid Mir on the stance taken by him vis-à-vis the incident of Malala
Yousafzai, and had also extended him threats. In that regard, he had a
detailed conversation with Senior Leader of Taliban Ihsanullah Ihsan, who
had reaffirmed that position. It was correct that all the Media Houses in
Pakistan, some of whom were also running TV Channels, were commercial
ventures. Voluntarily stated, they were doing the business of providing
information and entertainment to the people. He stated that whatever he had
stated in his affidavit about Major General Asim Saleem Bajwa was based on
oral conversation with him and he had no documentary proof in that regard.
In his opinion, ISI was not established as an anti-State Institution. However,
some officers in ISI had been committing acts of foolishness against the
national interest. On 19.1.2010, his house was locked from outside.
Somebody came on the rooftop of his house, thumped the door and went
away after creating a lot of fuss. When the dust settled, he came to know
that his car was also broken. On 7.5.2010, shots were fired at the door of his
house, which could well be observed from the bullet marks on the door.
Before those incidents, Raja Haider, probably Deputy Director in ISI and Col.
Tariq, who was head of Islamabad Detachment called him to their office.
They told him that the person at the top of ISI was concerned about his
Commission Report re: Incident of firing on Hamid Mir
18
reporting on the secret meetings between the DG ISI, the Chief Minister
Punjab and Ch. Nisar Ali Khan, the then Leader of the Opposition in the
National Assembly. They also asked him about the text of the message,
which he had already sent to Hussain Haqqani’s wife, in which he asked her
about the threat she received from the then DG ISI. In those days, he was
also working on, and collecting material about, Islamuddin Siddiqui, who was
convicted by a military court in the case of attack on General (Retd.) Pervez
Musharraf and then was executed without allowing him any recourse to the
courts of the land.
17. On 2.7.2014, Maqbool Ahmad Khan appeared before the
Commission and deposed that he was working as a Driver for the last 27/28
years. He was employed with M/S Hertz Optimus Ltd. for the last 7½ years.
On the day of incident at about 3:00 p.m., when he got free from his earlier
assignment, he contacted his officer in charge, who gave him cell number of
Mr. Ahmad in the office of Geo TV to establish contact with him. He reached
at the office of Geo TV situated at I.I. Chundrigar Road, Karachi at about
3:15 p.m. He was asked by Mr. Ahmad to wait as the Security Guard, who
had to accompany him, was yet to arrive. After about 10-15 minutes, the
Security Guard came there, upon which he was directed by Mr. Ahmad to go
to Quaid-e-Azam International Airport, Karachi to pick a passenger. Till the
time he reached airport, he was not aware as to who was the passenger
whom he had to pick from the airport. When he was on his way to the airport
along with the Security Guard, he received a telephone call from Mr. Ahmed
of Geo asking him to come back to the office and pick some other person
from there, who would accompany him to the airport along with Security
Guard. He did not know who that person was. On his way back from the
airport, he made a phone call to Mr. Ahmad to inquire about flight number
and the name of the person who was to be picked from the airport. Mr.
Ahmad gave him the flight number and also name of Mr. Hamid Mir.
Previously also on some occasions he had performed duty with Mr. Hamid
Commission Report re: Incident of firing on Hamid Mir
19
Mir. When he picked Mr. Hamid Mir from the airport, another Driver from
Marriot Hotel was also present there to pick him, who talked to Mr. Hamid
Mir and disclosed that fact to him. However, Mr. Hamid Mir chose not to
travel with the Driver of Marriot Hotel. The incident of firing on the car
carrying Mr. Hamid Mir occurred just at the place where the road coming
from the airport connects Shahra-e-Faisal under the overhead bridge. He saw
only one person firing at his car. He did not see his face. That is why, even if
the said person was brought before him, he would not be able to identify
him. The said person made 7-8 fires at his car. That person was holding a TT
pistol in his hand. During the incident fires at his car were made at the same
spot and out of those fires two were made from behind, while he was
speeding up his car on Shahra-e-Faisal after taking right turn from the place
of occurrence. He also heard two fires when he was near National Stadium,
but he was not sure whether that sound was due to some rickshaw silencer
fault or otherwise. No other bullet penetrated his vehicle except those which
had hit the car at the initial point of occurrence. He could not say whether
Security Guard sitting with him at the front seat of the car made any fire as
he speeded up the vehicle from there. The police personnel had contacted
him soon after the occurrence when he was still in the Agha Khan Hospital.
He did not know the name of police officer who contacted him in the hospital.
He was taken to New Town Police Station, where he was investigated and his
statement was recorded. After 3-4 days, he was called to Police
Headquarters Malir where he was again investigated and his statement was
recorded. He did not know the name of the police officer, who conducted
investigation from him and recorded his statement. Voluntarily said, while
taking Mr. Hamid Mir in an injured condition to the Agha Khan Hospital, he
had seen in the back view mirror two motorcyclists and one car following
him. He was not sure as to whether they were following him because he had
hit a motorcycle on his way to the hospital or they were from the side or
persons who had fired on his car when he was entering Shahra-e-Faisal from
Commission Report re: Incident of firing on Hamid Mir
20
Airport Road. He had no clue who was/were the person/persons responsible
for such assault on Mr. Hamid Mir. Thereafter, he shifted to a house in DHA
where his son was employed as a Chowkidar. After more than two weeks of
the occurrence, he found a letter20 at the outer gate of the said house
wherein threats were extended to the Driver and Security Guard of Mr.
Hamid Mir for saving his life. However, upon a query he stated that the letter
was allegedly written by TTPP and was addressed to driver and gunman of
Mr. Hamid Mir, asking them to leave the country otherwise they would be
targeted at any time.
18. On the same day, Doulat Khan appeared before the Commission
and deposed that he was working as Security Guard in Geo Group for the last
three years. He was driving the car, which was sent to pick Mr. Hamid Mir
from the airport. At the time of the incident, he was having an automatic .30
bore pistol with him. He had no experience of serving in any agency or any
security company before being appointed as Security Guard in Geo Group. He
had not undertaken any training as a Security Guard or did not know how to
use a weapon, particularly, in a situation when the person with whom he was
deployed as a Security Guard was attacked. Voluntarily said, it was Almighty
Allah who saved everyone. He was sitting at the front seat of the car when it
was attacked. When the Driver, after parking the vehicle at the parking lane,
had gone to the airport to pick Mr. Hamid Mir, he was dropped with the
instructions that from there he would again pick him in his vehicle after
taking the passenger from the airport. Earlier, on three different occasions,
he had accompanied Mr. Hamid Mir as a Security Guard. At the time of
attack, he kept on sitting on his seat and did not retaliate by making any fire
at the assailant(s). The moment Mr. Hamid Mir told him that he had suffered
bullet injury, he came onto the rear seat. At that time, from the broken glass
of window he made one fire in the air. When their vehicle was nearing the
Agha Khan Hospital, he was busy in looking after Mr. Hamid Mir, therefore,
20 Annexure-24
Commission Report re: Incident of firing on Hamid Mir
21
he had not seen whether any other motorcycle or vehicle was chasing them
or not. He was an illiterate person, therefore, he could not say how much
time was consumed in taking Mr. Hamid Mir from the place of occurrence to
the Agha Khan Hospital. He had no arms license of his own to hold any
weapon. The company owned the arms license, which was provided to him.
He produced his security company card21, which was in his possession at the
time when the incident occurred. Only one person had fired various pistol
shots at the vehicle. He had not seen the face of the culprit(s), therefore,
even if he was brought before him, he would not be able to identify him.
19. On 10.7.2014, Matiullah Jan appeared before the Commission
and affirmed the contents of his affidavit22. He stated that he was in
Islamabad on the day Mr. Hamid Mir was attacked in Karachi and hence he
could not be a direct witness of the incident, but being a journalist, he would
like to assist the Commission in ascertaining the already well-established and
acknowledged influence and role of the intelligence agencies, including ISI, in
affecting people’s right to information and freedom of speech guaranteed
under the Constitution through intimidation and coercion of journalists. He
stated that he strongly believed that the writings and programmes of Mr.
Hamid Mir, which reflected true political situation of Pakistan, were
misinterpreted by intelligence agency as against national interest and a
propaganda campaign was started against him long before the attack on him.
He also stated that the facts of the case of attack on Mr. Hamid Mir could not
be separated from circumstances and ground realities of civil-military
imbalance in Pakistan. On a query from the Commission, he stated that his
affidavit was based on his assumptions/beliefs about the happening of events
in Pakistan relating to the incident in question. It was his point of view about
the incidents happening to the persons associated with the electronic and
print media. He had also personally faced attack for intimidation as a result
of his working on some news items/reports. He had appeared before the 21 Annexure-25 22 Annexure-26
Commission Report re: Incident of firing on Hamid Mir
22
Inquiry Commission constituted to investigate into the death of late Saleem
Shehzad and got recorded his statement before the said Commission. He had
gone through the report of the said Commission and also seen
recommendations made therein. The suggestions made by the Commission,
though insufficient, were a positive step in the right direction, but the same
were not acted upon. In those days, he and Aizaz Syed were working on a
story regarding Abdul Islam Siddiqui, a soldier of Pakistan Army, who was
not allowed to have recourse to the constitutional courts of the country for
redressal of his grievance. Before he could have adopted such course, he was
hanged. He received this information from the lawyers and family members
of Abdul Islam Siddiqui. The name of the lawyer was Col.(R) Muhammad
Akram. He referred to a statement of Umar Islam Siddiqui, brother of Abdul
Islam Siddiqui in that regard wherein it was stated that ten days before the
scheduled execution of his brother, he accompanied by his lawyer reached
Multan Jail, but the prison authorities refused to allow them to meet his
brother saying that the Army had strictly forbidden it. He further stated that
he could not name the jail officials because the brother of Abdul Islam
Siddiqui did not name anyone. There was no contradiction or clarification
issued by the military authorities subsequent to the publication of the story.
As per information provided by Aizaz Syed, he was taken to ISI
Headquarters, where he was asked not to work on such story. The deponent
did not know whether he gave any such statement in that regard. To his
mind, the incident of intimidation by brick pelting on his car and that of Aizaz
Syed, could well be attributed to ISI. Aizaz Syed was also intimidated
through aerial firing at his residence. That too was attributed by him to ISI.
When certain incident takes place in any particular environment, the only
presumption in the circumstances would be that the agency affected by such
story would have reacted and retaliated. He did not report the incident of
intimidation through brick pelting. However, the incident of intimidation
through firing at the residence of Aizaz Syed was reported by him to the
Commission Report re: Incident of firing on Hamid Mir
23
police. As per information given by Aizaz Syed, police took no action on the
report thus made. In the scenario, which was prevailing at the moment, he
suggested that the intelligence agencies, particularly, ISI ought to be made
accountable for their operational and financial activities in order to bring the
constitutional balance of power in favour of the elected Government. The
persons attached with print and electronic media, like any other walk of life,
were not free from black sheep. However, those black sheep were required
to be dealt with according to law. The associations of journalists at different
levels, both belonging to print and electronic media, had their own
regulations/byelaws to control/regulate their activities, but it was only on
paper.
20. On 15.10.2014, Lt. Col. (R) Inam-ul-Rahiem Advocate appeared
before the Commission with reference to his affidavit23 and affirmed its
contents. He stated that he had been a practicing lawyer since the year
2007. On a query from the Commission, he stated that on the day of the
incident in question, he was in Rawalpindi. He came to know about it through
the breaking news flashed in the electronic media, but had no personal or
direct knowledge of the incident. He had met Mr. Hamid Mir after about one
month of the incident when he visited him along with other friends. He had
made suggestions in his affidavit, inter alia, that the agencies ought to be
made answerable by bringing them under the umbrella of civilian authorities,
who would be answerable to Parliament. He stated that the suggestions so
made by him were based on his personal experience. Voluntarily stated, his
interview regarding the incident of attack on him was telecast in Mr. Hamid
Mir’s talk show in the evening following the incident. During the said talk
show, Mr. Hamid Mir had received a telephonic call from DG, ISPR, who was
quite upset with Mr. Hamid Mir for inviting him to his show. Within 2-3 days
of the said talk show, an explosive was planted under the car of Mr. Hamid
Mir. He placed on record copies of two letters dated 30.5.2014 and
23 Annexure-27
Commission Report re: Incident of firing on Hamid Mir
24
12.6.201424 to show as to how after filing of affidavit before the Commission
he was victimized by torturing of his son Hasnain Inam. He added that on the
day of incident due to arrival of General (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf in Karachi,
strict security measures were put in place, therefore, only someone from the
agencies could have enacted such an incident.
21. On 2.5.2014, affidavit25 of Mr. Yasir Jamal, GM MIS, Geo TV
Network was also received wherein it was stated that he was produced
before the JIT on 29.4.2014. He was asked to give statement to the effect
that there was a possibility that TTP had made the attack on Mr. Hamid Mir.
However, he did not make such a statement. He also stated that another
person present there asked him, “wasn’t Mr. Hamid Mir doing a 100 days of
Drone Transmission, so wasn’t it obvious who got him?” However, he did not
appear before the Commission for examination.
22. On 9.5.2014, Mr. Absar Alam, a Senior Journalist, in his
affidavit26 dated 14.5.2014 reiterated the assumptions of Mr. Hamid Mir that
ISI was behind the incident, which Mr. Hamid Mir had communicated to him
on numerous occasions. Mr. Hamid Mir had also mentioned to him that he
was receiving threats to his life. He was being regularly followed and his
phones were also being tapped. However, he had never shared any
threatening emails/messages with him. He further stated that being a
journalist he was aware of the fact that the security/intelligence agencies
would usually resort to issuing threats to silence media persons in matters
pertaining to abuse of powers by such agencies. He lastly stated that he was
of the considered view that Saleem Shehzad Commission’s recommendations
ought to be implemented to ensure accountability of the intelligence agencies
and prevent misuse/abuse of power such as the aforesaid. He also filed a
supplemental affidavit dated 16.5.201427 wherein he stated that during
24 Annexures-28 & 29 25 Annexure-30 26 Annexure-31 27 Annexure-32
Commission Report re: Incident of firing on Hamid Mir
25
Nadeem Malik Live Show aired on SAMAA TV on 5.5.2014, Sheikh Rashid
Ahmed had mentioned his name along with the names of M/S Imtiaz Alam,
Najam Sethi, Umar Cheema and others and stated that international
agencies, such as RAW or MOSSAD could cause a threat to their lives, but
the blame would ultimately fall upon ISI. He thus believed that Mr. Sheikh
Rashid Ahmed might be having some information pertaining to the inquiry in
hand, therefore, he ought to be summoned. However, he did not appear
before the commission to get his statement recorded.
23. Considering the material in the shape of emails, affidavits and
statements brought on record in the course of the proceedings of the
Commission, the Secretary, Ministry of Defence was required to produce the
statements in the form of affidavits of DG ISI Lt. General Muhammad Zahir-
ul-Islam, Brig. Zahid, Col. Khalid and Major General Asim Saleem Bajwa, DG
ISPR. Accordingly, a joint affidavit sworn by DG, ISI, Brig. Zahid Mahmud
Khan and Lt. Colonel Khalid Taimur Akram was filed28. It was stated in the
affidavit, inter alia, that the deponents were functioning under strict
discipline of a most organized and premier intelligence apparatus of the
country. The news of the incident of firing upon Mr. Hamid Mir was shocking
for them, however, their Institution was unfortunately blamed and
scandalized without any evidence for 8 continuous hours on Geo TV network
in sheer disregard of PEMRA regulations and the law of the land. It was
asserted that they knew the value of human life as the Armed Forces of
Pakistan had suffered more losses than any other Army in the region in
recent past. It was their duty to protect the nation and motherland. The
blame and aspersions cast upon them through the media trial were untrue
and the same were vehemently denied. It was stated that none of the
deponents had any knowledge or was concerned with the said incident.
Finally, it was stated that a member of ISI was part of JIT constituted by the
Government of Sindh and that the representatives of ISI were extending all
28 Annexure-33
Commission Report re: Incident of firing on Hamid Mir
26
possible assistance to JIT to bring the perpetrators of crime against Mr.
Hamid Mir to book.
24. Brig. Zahid Mahmud Khan, one of the deponents of the above
affidavits, appeared before the Commission on 2.7.2014. He affirmed the
contents of the affidavit filed by him and two other aforesaid officers of ISI.
He stated that the inquiry into the incident was conducted in Karachi by JIT,
which included a member from ISI. However, he had absolutely no clue
about the incident, wherein Mr. Hamid Mir suffered bullet injuries. On a query
from the Commission, he stated that he was working as Sector Commander
(Central) in ISI since the year 2009. He stated that during the period of his
posting, he had met with Mr. Hamid Mir only once and had very little contact
with him. Probably, it was two years back when he met him. Mr. Mir being a
media person, his meeting with him was just introductory in nature. Mr.
Hamid Mir had met him in his office of his own accord. Mr. Hamid Mir had
sought appointment and had interacted with him through the persons who
were working with him (deponent). As a matter of fact, media people always
have some interaction with the persons working in his position. Mr. Hamid
Mir, during their meeting, discussed the situation in the country in general,
and in the tribal areas in particular. Mr. Hamid Mir did not discuss anything
with him regarding any person kept in any Internment Centre. The discussion
centred around terrorist activities in the tribal areas. He knew that Mr. Hamid
Mir had been very vocal against ISI in certain programmes, but at the same
time he was supportive as well. As a matter of fact, his institution graded
him as one of the good anchor persons and political analysts. He never
communicated anything to Mr. Hamid Mir showing disapproval or any type of
criticism against his programmes. He knew that in many programmes Mr. Mir
held ISI responsible for missing persons and so did the participants of his
programmes, who happened to be the relatives of the missing persons. He
had heard that in many programmes, Mr. Hamid Mir had voiced concerns
about threats from ISI, but he did not personally watch any such programme
Commission Report re: Incident of firing on Hamid Mir
27
in which he had voiced any such concerns. Despite knowing that Mr. Mir was
a critic of ISI and other intelligence agencies, he, at his level, took his
criticism as his personal view and did not care to see what he was up to, and
who was at the back of it. He did not know what prompted Mr. Mir to accuse
ISI for what happened to him on 19.4.2014. The journalists of all the
categories had been interacting with them. The purpose of interaction with
the journalists was none other than to have acquaintance with each other. At
times, they would share intelligence or information having bearing on
national interest. Since they had no specific source, at no stage they tried to
refute the accusations such as in the case of the incident of firing upon Mr.
Hamid Mir. The perception that ISI was an adversary of the media men was
a bald allegation, which was used as a modus operandi to seek popularity. In
late Saleem Shahzad’s case, allegation was levelled against ISI, but no
concrete evidence could be brought forth in the matter. The intelligence
gathered by ISI was mostly strategic having bearing on the national interest.
25. A separate affidavit sworn by DG ISPR Major General Asim
Saleem Bajwa was also filed29 wherein it was stated that he was serving as
DG ISPR since 4.6.2012. The news of unfortunate incident of firing on Mr.
Hamid Mir reached him through TV news at about 17:45 hrs. It was
unfortunate that within an hour and a half after the incident allegations were
levelled on Geo TV against ISI and DG ISI in relation to the said firing
incident without any evidence. He lastly stated in his affidavit that ISPR had
issued a press release condemning the incident and praying for the health of
Mr. Hamid Mir. The allegations levelled against ISI without any basis were
regretted and holding of an independent inquiry to ascertain facts was
demanded in the press release.
26. On 29.1.2015, DSP Muhammad Ayub Bhurgari appeared before
the Commission and affirmed the contents of his affidavit30. He stated that he
had been in the service of Police Department since 13.7.1986, when he was
inducted as ASI. On a query from the Commission, he stated that on the day 29 Annexure-34 30 Annexure-35
Commission Report re: Incident of firing on Hamid Mir
28
of the incident he was working as DSP/SDPO, Airport Police Station, Karachi
and the site of occurrence fell within the territorial jurisdiction of that Police
Station. As at the level of DSP, there was no bifurcation in the police
department for the purpose of operation and investigation, therefore, he was
given the charge for both the purposes. It being a high profile case, its
investigation was entrusted to him. On 25.4.2014, he was appointed as IO.
Upon a query from the Commission as to why FIR regarding the incident was
not lodged immediately, he stated that it was a high profile case and they
kept waiting for some person from the family of injured Mr. Hamid Mir to
come forward and lodge FIR. For that purpose, many high ranking police
officials had also contacted them. Other than that he had no explanation for
delay in the lodging of FIR. He admitted that it was not necessary that FIR of
a cognizable offence could only be lodged by some relative of the injured or
the deceased, as the case may be. He stated that the investigation at the
spot vis-à-vis collection of crime empties, preparation of sketch, etc. was
started soon after the occurrence before the lodging of FIR. Besides, CCTV
footage was collected before lodging of the FIR. On a query, he stated that
he had not personally seen the CCTV footage, therefore, he could not say
whether in that footage any person or persons were identified as suspects in
the commission of the crime. He did not remember exactly the number of
witnesses whose statements were recorded under section 161 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. However, in his estimation, they were about 10 in
number. In his capacity as SDPO, he visited the place of occurrence the same
day. The crime empties recovered from the place of occurrence were sent to
Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Sketches of the suspects were
prepared. With the help of geo-fencing data, seven suspects were
apprehended and thoroughly interrogated. The CCTV footage was shown to
many persons so as to identify the persons seen therein near, around or
following Mr. Hamid Mir on his arrival at the lounge and exit therefrom. He
had entered in his diaries the names of the persons who were shown in the
Commission Report re: Incident of firing on Hamid Mir
29
footage for the purpose of tracing out the persons involved in the crime. The
report under section 168 of the Code of Criminal Procedure dated 9.6.2014
was prepared by him, which was approved by the SSP concerned on
11.6.2014, and submitted before the Special Judge, ATC-I, Karachi on
13.6.2014. On a query, he stated that he did not know whether any
identification parade was held through the injured Mr. Hamid Mir as regards
the seven suspects apprehended by the law enforcing agencies in the context
of the incident. He further stated that no record of entry and exit was being
maintained at the airport. Such entries were mentioned in the police diaries,
but he could not refer to the same at that moment. What was done by him
was done independently and what had been done by the high ups in
connection with the investigation of this case was also done by them
independently. Despite the fact that many of the movements of Mr. Hamid
Mir and the persons following him were preserved in CCTV cameras,
investigation was not conducted on scientific lines to have the said pictures
verified from NADRA. He could not account for the fact as to why the matter
was not taken to its logical end by the high ups in the Police Department.
Even after submission of the report, still there was no clue about the actual
culprits involved in the incident. Eventually the police remained unsuccessful
in tracing the culprits.
27. On 29.1.2015, DSP Fakar-ul-Islam Usmani appeared before the
Commission and affirmed the contents of his affidavit31. On a query from the
Commission, he stated that on the day of incident, he was posted as SDPO in
Alfalah Sub-Division, District East, Karachi. He was basically serving as SDPO
Malir City, Karachi in the operational field. However, he was given the
additional charge of post of SDPO Airport Sub-Division, as the concerned DSP
Mr. Barakullah had been posted abroad for a period of two years. He had
taken over the charge as SDPO, Airport Police Station about 25 days ago. He
was not aware of the investigation of the incident in question. He further
31 Annexure-36
Commission Report re: Incident of firing on Hamid Mir
30
stated that after having been given the charge of the post of SDPO Airport
Sub-Division, he had gone through the police papers of the crime and came
to know that ‘A’ class report in respect of the crime had been submitted by
DSP Muhammad Ayub Bhurgari on 9.6.2014. In that regard, his knowledge
was confined only to that extent. He had no further information about the
culprits involved in the said crime.
28. Notice dated 26.5.2014 was issued to the following persons
requiring them to participate in the proceedings of the Commission and to
furnish recommendations for consideration of the Commission in the course
of preparation of the report with the object of avoiding such incidents in
future: -
(1) Mr. Hameed Haroon (2) Mr. Muhammad Hanif (3) Mr. Mazhar Abbas (4) Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Khattak (5) Mama Qadeer Baloch (6) Mr. Muhammad Umar Cheema (7) Mr. Adnan Rehmat (8) Mr. Nadeem Malik (9) Mr. Shakil Turabi (10) Ms. Jugnoo Mohsin (11) Mr. Najam Aziz Sethi (12) Rana Jawwad (13) Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, ASC (14) Mr. Rauf Kalasra (15) Mr. Raza Rumi
In response, M/S Najam Aziz Sethi and Shakil Ahmed Turabi filed their
recommendations32.
29. Mr. Najam Sethi, in his letter addressed to the Commission,
stated that there was no doubt in his mind that Mr. Hamid Mir, like several
others including himself in the past, was the victim of repressive and
intimidating tactics by State and non-State actors. The basis for such
assertion was in the form of threats given directly and indirectly by
phone/text/personal meetings/media. Since such State and non-State actors
were powerful, they were fearful of naming them without adequate
protection, which was not forthcoming from the custodians of the law. Along
32 Annexures-37
Commission Report re: Incident of firing on Hamid Mir
31
with his letter, he attached the statement he gave before Saleem Shahzad
Commission. He also referred to the book by Elizabeth Rubin on the media in
Pakistan, which was available online.
30. Mr. Shakil Turabi, in his letter33 addressed to the Commission,
stated, inter alia, that the journalists were tortured during the military rule
more than during the civilian regimes. He condemned the incident of firing
upon Mr. Hamid Mir and stated that instead of ensuring proper investigation
of the incident, the authorities were engaged in targeting his Group and
arranging demonstrations. In the process, certain anchor persons and young
journalists also used frivolous language against Mr. Hamid Mir. He narrated
the incident of alleged disappearance of his own son Hassan Sharjil. He also
criticized the Press Council of Pakistan and other regulatory authorities for
enjoying perks and privileges, which, according to him, were white elephants
and had also become corruption dens. He suggested that the irregularities
could be overcome not through bullet, but by dialogue. The Government,
judiciary, civil society and the journalists all ought to play their respective
role in evolving code of conduct. The Government ought to re-organize the
regulatory authorities as well as the Press Council of Pakistan by appointing
not the favourites of the political parties, but experts of the field.
31. Mr. Mazhar Abbas sent an email34 wherein he stated that he was
also a part of PCOMS. That body had already formulated recommendations/
suggestions for safety of journalists and forwarded to the Commission by Mr.
Iqbal Khattak, which, according to him, were good enough. And in case he
got something more useful, that too would be sent to the Commission,
however, nothing further was received from him.
32. A perusal of the material brought on record shows that the
incident of firing upon Mr. Hamid Mir occurred on 19.4.2014 at about 5:15
p.m. On the said date he had reached Karachi in connection with a TV
programme. He came out of the airport and boarded the car provided to him 33 Annexure-38 34 Annexure-39
Commission Report re: Incident of firing on Hamid Mir
32
by Geo TV Management. The car was driven by Maqbool Ahmed Driver who
was accompanied by Security Guard Daulat Khan. When the car reached
under the Jinnah Overhead Bridge intercepting Shahra-e-Faisal, the Driver
had to slow it down because of the sharp turn. Suddenly firing was made at
the car from its right side. Mr. Hamid Mir received bullet injuries on different
parts of his body. The Driver accelerated the car and took the injured to
Agha Khan University Hospital, where he was provided medical treatment.
The incident was immediately reported on electronic media. On Geo News
TV, it was specifically alleged that the incident had taken place at the behest
of an Intelligence Agency, namely, ISI. Thereafter, Mr. Amir Mir, brother of
Mr. Hamid Mir, named the then DG, ISI behind the attack. Few days later,
Mr. Hamid Mir endorsed his brother’s statement and reiterated the allegation
without naming the then DG, ISI. He, in a written statement, said that if
anyone from his family was harmed in anyway, the responsibility would fall
on ‘State elements’. It was further stated that he had informed his
organization’s management, family members and friends about potential
threat to his life. It was also stated that he had informed a member of the
agency, who had come to his house, that he was feeling threatened by ISI.
High officials of the State, namely, the President of Pakistan, the Prime
Minister as well as other political leaders, strongly condemned the attack.
The DG ISPR issued a press release wherein the allegations levelled against
ISI were denied and the same were termed as misleading. It was stated that
raising allegations against ISI or head of ISI without any basis was highly
regrettable. An independent inquiry into the matter was asked for to
ascertain the real facts. Consequently, the instant Commission was
constituted.
33. Both Mr. Hamid Mir and his brother, Mr. Amir Mir, had filed
affidavits in support of the allegations so made. Mr. Hamid Mir also appeared
before the Commission and was examined in depth by the Commission.
However, nothing concrete came forth on the basis of which the Commission
Commission Report re: Incident of firing on Hamid Mir
33
would have moved in any particular direction in unearthing the truth and
identifying the real culprits involved in the commission of the crime. It was so
because he was unable to give any clue about the culprit(s) involved in the
incident. Only one person from the locality, namely, Mukhtar Ahmed
appeared before the Commission, however, he too could not furnish any clue
towards identification of the actual culprit(s). Some persons from print and
electronic media appeared before the Commission. Almost all of them in their
respective affidavits/statements, directly or indirectly, raised their fingers
towards one Federal Agency (ISI). However, on queries from the
Commission, all of them stated that their assertions were simply based on
their assumptions and apprehensions, their approach and their peculiar
mindset, and that they had no tangible proof in support of such assertions.
None of them could refer to any direct or conclusive circumstantial evidence
pointing to the involvement of any particular individual or organization
including ISI in the attempt on the life of Mr. Hamid Mir. The
information/material provided by them was of no material assistance to the
Commission in identifying either the culprits of the crime or the hands behind
it. Whatever was said by them was hearsay in nature, hence the same could
not be made a basis for giving any definite finding pertaining to culpability of
any individual or organization. In any case, the incident in question is
essentially criminal in nature, therefore, assumptions or apprehensions,
howsoever strong they may be, cannot be made the basis of culpability of
anyone. In this behalf, the statement made by Mr. Aizaz Syed during his
deposition before the Commission that Taliban were annoyed with Mr. Hamid
Mir on account of the stance taken by him on the issue of Malala Yousafzai
also cannot be ignored. In the above scenario, no finding vis-à-vis the
identity of the culprit(s) or fixing responsibility of the incident on any
individual, group, or organization can be given.
34. It is pertinent to mention here that alongside the proceedings of
the Commission, the investigation of the case was continued by the IO/JIT.
Commission Report re: Incident of firing on Hamid Mir
34
In this regard, progress reports were submitted before the Commission from
time to time. Lastly, report dated 3.12.2014 was presented in the following
terms:-
“On 19.04.2014 at about 1730 hours, the SHO of P.S. Air Port received message through Police Control regarding a firing incident at Natha Khan Bridge Shahrah-e-Faisal, Karachi. SHO Air Port Police Station alongwith police party reached at Shahrah-e-Faisal Natha Khan Bridge, but no incident of firing was reported there. It was evening time and business/office closing hours, due to there was heavy traffic flow which was moving at a snail's pace from Karsaz towards Malir that was causing difficulties to find out exact place of incident. However, in order to determine the exact place of incident the SHO as well as Police Mobiles of PS Air Port made queries from the People available at various points from Natha Khan Bridge up to Air Port. Meanwhile the Crime Scene was determined opposite Madam Apartment beneath Jinnah overhead Bridge. As soon as the place of incident was determined, higher officials of Karachi Police reached at the scene of incident. The eye witnesses of the incident namely Mukhtiar Ahmed, Yasir Freed and Muhammad Nawaz were also present. They stated that at about 1715 Hours one white Toyota Corolla car, coming from Airport side, heading towards Shahrah-e-Faisal, when reached beneath the Jinnah overhead bridge the car slowed down due to a sharp turning. Suddenly one person who was wearing shalwar kameez and already present at the foot path started shooting at white Toyota Car from the right side. The driver accelerated the speed and fled away. The perpetrator also decamped from the Scene on a Motor Cycle with his accomplice. The area was cordoned off and the SHO of Air Port P.S collected evidence from the place of incident and sealed in the presence of above said eye witnesses and sent to FSL for examination and report.
At about 1855 hours the Security Supervisor Javed Khan of Aga Khan University Hospital telephonically informed at airport police station that one Hamid Mir aged about 40 years of Geo TV has brought at Aga Khan Hospital with the history of gunshot injuries received near Madam Apartment Shahrah-e-Faisal Karachi. He also mentioned his M.R. No. that is M.R.196-22-24/14. The call was received by duty officer SIP Shahadat Ali Khan and admitted accordingly in station diary vide entry No. 16 dated 19.04.2014. Upon information from Aga Khan Hospital, duty officer SIP Shahadat Ali Khan was dispatched to Aga Khan University Hospital for legal Proceedings.
On presenting the letter for recording statement of injured Hamid Mir, Duty Incharge of the Ward gave in writing that the injured is not in the position to record his statement. Thereafter he met with driver of white Toyota corolla AWC 294 Maqbool Ahmad and Gun man Daulat Khan present in Hospital. They stated that on the day they received Mr. Hamid Mir from Karachi Air Port who came from Islamabad and boarded on Toyota corolla AWC 294 for Geo TV Office. At about 1715 hours at approaching under the Jinnah Over Head Brigade the driver slowed the Car being Sharp turning and cat eyes, suddenly firing started upon the Car from right side and caused injuries to
Commission Report re: Incident of firing on Hamid Mir
35
Hamid Mir. The driver accelerated the speed of the car and took him to Aga Khan University Hospital for treatment. Despite request the driver and the Gun man refused to record their written statements under section 154 Cr.P.C.
The ill-fated Toyota corolla AWC 294 Car in which the incident had taken place was stationed in the Aga Khan Hospital, which was inspected by SIP Shahadat Ali Khan, secured blood stained pieces of Seat Cover & Foot mat & one empty of 30 bore Pistol which was said to be fired by the Gun man Daulat Khan upon the culprit in retaliation. After inspection, the car & blood Stained pieces of seat covers & others were sent to FSL & Chemical Examiner for examination and report.
The SHO of Air Port P.S. and the Senior Officers reached at Aga Khan Hospital and contacted to the brother of Hamid Mir namely Amir Mir and other Geo Officials to register the FIR but they were reluctant and stated that Hamid Mir himself would register the case as and when he would gain his senses. Despite repeated visit to Aga Khan Hospital, the Doctors neither allowed to record the statement of the injured Hamid Mir nor any other person found willing to record his statement under section 154 Cr.P.C. Due to non co-operation of Geo Administration and the family members of injured Hamid Mir in lodging the FIR there was no alternative except to lodge the FIR on behalf of State, as there was serious apprehension, the delay in lodging the FIR will hamper/damaged the investigation. Since the incident had taken place within the local jurisdiction of P.S. Air Port, therefore, SIP Shahadat Ali Khan lodged the FIR vide FIR No.60/2014, under section 324/427 PPC r/w Section 7 ATA & 15 PPO.
After registration of the case the investigation of the case was assigned to at time SDPO airport DSP Ayub Bhurgari under the Supervision of higher senior officers of police. Investigation Officer DSP Ayub Bhurgari received the case file including CCTV footages – of arrival of Hamid Mir from Karachi Airport, his departure from the Airport Car Parking, record of Cameras installed at Drigh road, Rashid Minhas Road Flyover, Drigh Road near SSP East Office, Colony Gate Shah Faisal Bridge, Karsaz Bridge, Maritime Museum, Time Medicos and footages of privately installed CCTV Cameras at Speedy CNG near Chota gate, Total pump Natha Khan, Hascol Pump near PAF Shahra-e-Faisal and Aga Khan University Hospital. the Sketches of the culprits made with the help of eye witnesses from CPLC Karachi, Finger Prints, Manifest of Flight No. PK-369. The entire papers/Memos/reports were verified and also scrutinized the CCTV Footage record.
That on 24.04.2014 the statement of injured Hamid Mir was recorded by Inspector Asadullah Ansari SIO of Airport P.S. in the presence of case IO, DSP Airport Mr. Ayub Bhurgari and SSP Investigation East II.
Case IO, at time DSP Airport Mr. Ayub Bhurgari wrote a letter for “GEO FENCING DATA” of Islamabad Air Port, Arrival Lounge of Karachi Air Port, Car Parking Karachi Air Port, Place of incident, Central Jail Karachi, Central Jail Hyderabad and Central Jail Sukhur. He also wrote a letter to FSL Wing for examination
Commission Report re: Incident of firing on Hamid Mir
36
of crime empties secured from the place of incident with the empties secured in other crimes.
The initial report of "GEO FENCING DATA" has been collected which was scrutinized by the Professionals/Experts, However in pursuance of Scrutiny report of Geo Fencing Data 07. Suspects were apprehended and thoroughly interrogated but no fruitful results were achieved.
Despite repeated reminder the final report of Geo Fencing Data is still under process, however in the light of initial report of Geo Fencing Data several searches & raids were conducted within the jurisdiction of several Police Stations of Karachi but the culprits could not be traced out.
More over few suspects have been run on through the help of CID technical wing to correlate them with criminal data base. The results given by them were being worked out through field checking. It is necessary to mention here that a letter dated 08.06.2014 was also sent to Incharge FSL of Terrorism in Karachi with the empties of the subject matter.
During the course of investigations 10 DSP Mr. Ayub Bhurgari recommended/asked permission to delete the section 15 PPO as the attack on Mr. Hamid Mir is not a case waging war against Pakistan that was accepted and deleted.
It is further submitted that in pursuance of such letter FSL test was conducted and reported that on 13.05.2014 murder of MLO (JPMC) Dr. Manzoor Ahmed Memon and his driver Ashique Ali had taken place within the Jurisdiction of P.S. Frere South Karachi, for which Crime No. 125114, under section 302134 r/w. 7ATA was registered at P.S. Frere. The result of FSL reveals that Crime empties of that matter are matched with the empties of the case in hand, meaning thereby that the in both incident Crime weapon is same. This case has submitted for disposal before ATC court as final report "A" class and yet not approved.
Lastly it is submitted that the investigation Team is also working on secret information continuously but unfortunately success has not been achieved till yet. The investigation team is hope full about tracing out the case soon, as it is working on positive clues including suspicious footages obtained from Air Port. The case has been disposed as final reports "A" class vide No. 40/2014 dated, 11.06.2014, final report submitted before the Court ATC-I Karachi. Investigation of the case is ongoing with undersigned.”
35. A perusal of the above report shows that the instant case was
treated as ‘A’ Class and report in terms of section 173 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure was filed before the concerned Court on 11.6.2014. However, it
may be mentioned here that filing of such report does not absolve the
investigation agency of its duty to continue pursuing the case. Efforts must
be continued to trace the culprits even after filling of such report and
whenever any clue is found, further progress must be made accordingly and
Commission Report re: Incident of firing on Hamid Mir
37
the matter taken to its logical end. With this proposition in mind, the IO was
called from time to time so as to apprise the Commission of any further
progress made in the matter, but he always came up with a negative report.
During the proceedings of the Commission, which continued for almost nine
months, directions were issued to different law enforcing agencies repeatedly
to fulfil their legal obligations in this regard, but always a very casual and
routine response was received. Even the JIT remained clueless uptill now as
is evident from its final report35.
36. When we closely look at the material brought on record
pertaining to the incident of firing at Mr. Hamid Mir right from its inception,
we find that there was complete failure on the part of all the law enforcing
agencies in the performance of their duty to properly investigate the instant
case. So much so the FIR of the incident was lodged on 23.4.2014 at 7:05
p.m., although the occurrence had taken place on 19.4.2014 at about 5:30
p.m., and on the same day Roznamcha Report No.16 was prepared by the
complainant SI Shahadat Ali Khan Khichi. Immediate lodging of FIR was
mandated under the law to set the machinery of law into motion. However, it
was not done by any of the police officials.
37. It may also be mentioned here that during the in-camera
proceedings of the Commission, CCTV footage was shown to the Members of
the Commission in presence of high ranking officials belonging to different
departments/organizations. Two persons were shown in the CCTV footage
moving in a suspicious manner at Quaid-i-Azam International Airport at the
time of arrival of Mr. Hamid Mir on 19.4.2014 and immediately thereafter. On
the basis of such footage, it was stated time and again before the
Commission that there was a likelihood of breakthrough in the investigation
and that the agencies undertaking such exercise would be able to reach to
the actual culprits. However, at the end of day, report in terms of section 173
of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed treating the case as “A” Class.
35 Annexure 40
Commission Report re: Incident of firing on Hamid Mir
38
This cannot be termed as diligent functioning of the investigating agencies.
As per report of the IO dated 3.12.2014, initial report of geo fencing data
was collected and scrutinized by the experts and seven suspects were
apprehended, but they were not found involved in the incident. In this
regard, final report on geo fencing data was also not received. Considering
the nature of the incident, it is not believable that before and at the time of
occurrence, the culprits had no communications with each other or with
anyone else. A thorough analysis of the geo fencing data was called for in the
matter. Had such exercise been undertaken with due diligence, it would have
definitely provided the investigating agencies clue towards the perpetrators
of the crime. Such lapse clearly hinted at inefficiency, lack of commitment
and dedication to duty on the part of the law enforcing agencies as well as
absence of coordination and cooperation among them. In the process,
improper considerations also could not be overruled.
38. The assumptions, apprehensions or suspicions of Mr. Hamid Mir
and other journalists of the print and electronic media apart, we cannot
remain oblivious of certain other facts and circumstances, such as the ever
deteriorating state of law and order, particularly over the last one decade
during which several armed groups and terrorist organizations had come up
and in literal sense waged war against the State of Pakistan following the
agenda of certain foreign powers working against the independence, integrity
and sovereignty of the country. The sectarian and ethnic conflicts have been
brought about, which are ruthlessly aired by different means. This eventually
is aimed at weakening the foundations and fabric of the State and society. All
means are adopted to malign not only the country as a whole, but each and
every institution and organization of the State as well. Every attempt is made
to make everything controversial. It is unfortunate that a number of
individuals or groups of individuals are employed in the process. The mad
race for breaking news and getting lead makes the things from bad to worse.
Falsehood is propagated brazen-facedly and truth obliterated or worse
Commission Report re: Incident of firing on Hamid Mir
39
confounded. Indeed, the journalists are the eyes and ears of the society,
however, the manner and method of reporting in the modern days, gives rise
to a question whether the media houses are providing information to the
people or creating panic in the society? It is an alarming state of affairs. All
the stakeholders are required to be careful and cautious in conducting
themselves in their respective spheres lest the damage resulting from an
irresponsible approaches, actions and reactions becomes irreparable.
39. What we have noticed during these proceedings is that, prima
facie, there was a tug of war among some members of print and electronic
media on the one hand, and a Federal Agency on the other. It was so
because according to the members of print and electronic media, who had
appeared before the Commission, the said agency was not happy with their
reporting. As such, it had been trying to regulate their working in defiance of
the norms of journalism, which was considered to be an important ingredient
of democracy in any civilized society. As mentioned earlier, the officers of the
ISI/ISPR in their affidavits expressed their complete disassociation with the
incident. However, as against it, all persons belonging to the print and
electronic media, in their affidavits/statements did raise their fingers towards
a Federal Agency (ISI). We have held hereinabove that the assertions so
made by them were essentially based on suspicions, assumptions or
apprehensions and were in the nature of hearsay evidence, hence of no
material assistance to the Commission in determining the culpability of any
individual or organization, particularly in the face of affidavits/statement filed
by the concerned officials in rebuttal. Nonetheless, we cannot lose sight of an
important aspect of the matter, viz., the interaction of the media persons
with the agencies in the course of their professional duties. In the process,
there are concerns raised on behalf of the agencies vis-à-vis reporting on
sensitive issues of national security. Such concerns have their genesis in
various Articles of the Constitution, including Article 5 (loyalty to State and
obedience to Constitution and law) and Proviso to Article 10(7) ibid. It is
Commission Report re: Incident of firing on Hamid Mir
40
noteworthy that the safeguard as to arrest and detention enshrined in the
latter provision does not apply to a person who is employed by, or works for,
or acts on instructions received from, the enemy or who is acting or
attempting to act in a manner prejudicial to the integrity, security or defence
of Pakistan or any part thereof or who commits or attempts to commit any
act which amounts to an anti-national activity as defined in a Federal law or
is a member of any association which has for its objects, or which indulges
in, any such anti-national activity. Similarly, the right to freedom of speech is
also subject to reasonable restrictions imposed, inter alia, in the interest of
integrity, security and defence of Pakistan or any part thereof, friendly
relations with foreign States and public order. On the other hand, there is a
constant and consistent pattern of complaints emanating from the members
of the print and electronic media including their family members made not
only before this Commission in the affidavits/statements, but in the past as
well whenever any media person went missing, or suffered torture at the
hidden hands, or lost life in mysterious circumstances. Such incidents do
constitute grave violations of various Articles of the Constitution, e.g., Article
4 (right of individuals to be dealt with in accordance with law), Article 9
(security of person), Article 10 (safeguards as to arrest and detention),
Article 10A (right to fair trial), Article 14 (inviolability of dignity of man),
Article 19 (freedom of speech) and Article 19A (right to information), which
all subjects of the Constitution are mandated to uphold and guard against.
This apparent conflict calls for a rational resolution so as to bring
reconciliation, harmony and balance in the working of the two sides. In this
backdrop, an appropriate mechanism would be required to be put in place to
deal with such complaints so that the individual concerned is dealt with
according to law. The Commission constituted to probe into the death of late
Saleem Shahzad whose report was made public in the recent past, and to
which references were made by some of the journalists in their depositions
before the Commission, in a more or less similar scenario, had come up with
Commission Report re: Incident of firing on Hamid Mir
41
certain recommendations. We have gone through those recommendations
and would reiterate the same.36 In this behalf, the recommendations made
by a Special Working Group of Pakistan Coalition on Media Safety (PCOMS)
to investigate attacks against media persons, namely, provision for
appointment of a special prosecutor, legal aid unit, family counseling unit and
primary case investigation unit are also worth consideration at the
appropriate level.
40. Before parting with the report, we would like to mention here
that the recommendations made by the aforesaid Commission, as rightly
pointed out before us, were regretfully not given any consideration insofar as
no further progress appeared to have been made in the matter by the
Government at the appropriate level. Had any concrete steps been taken in
line with the recommendations so made, recurrence of such incidents would
have been avoided.
(Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali) President
(Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan) (Justice Iqbal Hameedur Rehman) Member Member
NOTE: The Annexes form part of the Report.
36 Annexure-41